It’s really very simple, but some people sincerely don’t seem to get it.

The problem the world has is this: We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So far, that is not happening. Greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise. Annual global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rose by 6% in 2021 to 36.3 billion metric tons, their highest ever level, as the world economy rebounded from the Covid-19 crisis and relied heavily on coal to power that growth (IEA analysis released March 8, 2022).

In 2021, people in developed nations produced on average 8.2 metric tons of CO2 each, and in China, 8.4 metric tons; meanwhile, per capita emissions in the United States were 14.5 metric tons in 2021, an increase from 2020 pandemic levels.

So when the Chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives says “There’s actually a place for fossil fuels in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” it makes us scratch our heads. Because adding is not subtracting.

Don’t get us wrong – it’s great that a Conservative Climate Caucus exists, and that its Chair, Representative John Curtis (R, Utah), considers himself a great lover of nature. The caucus, according to National Public Radio reporting (Michel Martin interview 11/19/22), hopes to advance climate policies “consistent with conservative values.” They acknowledge that climate change is real. Unfortunately, so far their two main policy pillars seem to be increasing nuclear power and increasing the use of “cleaner” fossil fuels – most commonly natural gas (which produces roughly 30% less CO2 than oil when burned, not accounting for methane leaks in production, transport and use).

Nuclear power is nearly emissions-free, but unfortunately the timeframe required (decades) to increase nuclear power’s generation enough to displace fossil fuels is way off for the atmospheric warming trajectory we are on at this moment.

Rep. Curtis  attended the COP27 conference in Egypt, but oddly, did not hear from “a single country” that they desire compensation for climate damages. What he heard was that poor countries suffering the effects of global warming wanted only to be allowed to extract their fossil fuels. His main takeaway was “so let’s help them use those resources in a clean way. I think that’s the win-win in this and just writing the checks never really solved anything.” (Hmm, wonder why the COP27’s participants spent the whole conference negotiating a “loss and damage” fund if nobody asked them to?)

Can we agree that using “cleaner” fossil fuels while continuing to increase our energy use would at best slightly moderate the rate of increase in greenhouse gasses? And that lowering the rate at which greenhouse gas emissions are rising does not equal lowering greenhouse gas emissions?

More bad news -azas’;/’PAZ increasing renewable energy generation does not in itself lower fossil fuel emissions – unless it displaces them. Burning wood also creates CO2. We need to reduce our production of CO2.

What the fossil fuel industry and its well-paid allies is doing its best to convince us of (and evidently it is succeeding) is that more can be less; that increasing is actually decreasing; that they are innovating with carbon capture/sequestration to help us, not to assure their continued profiteering from fossil fuel sales; that they want to sell more poison to sustain our health; that they’re in business to keep our civilization thriving even while overseeing the death of a planet.

Lamenting the “demonization” of the fossil fuel industry, Curtis referred repeatedly to the “people” in the industry struggling to innovate and develop new ways to burn fossil fuels more – um, helpfully? Wait – would those be the same “people” who made corporate decisions to downplay or completely cover up scientific findings about the consequences of fossil fuel induced planetary warming as long as 50 years ago, when the world still had a chance? Is it “demonization” to call out lying?

Representative Curtis identifies as one of those humans with “an innate desire to leave this better than we found it.” That sounds sincere, but it also sounds like he believes that because the fossil fuel industry exists, the only “reasonable” position is to accept that it must continue to exist.

He  believes there is an equivalency in the extremes of the climate views of the right and left: “On our side, they’re the deniers. On the other side, they’re the take your head off to fix the headache. And like any issue, there’s a thoughtful middle.”

Well, here’s a thought: More is not less. In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you have to actually reduce the emissions, and we have to do it now.

Incentives to reduce fossil fuel use would be a good place for a well-meaning Conservative Climate Caucus to start. Have we mentioned a carbon fee and dividend? (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend) This is an idea originally put forward by conservative economists as a market based solution to reducing CO2 emissions swiftly and equitably. And it is supported by thoughtful liberal, conservative, and “middle” types.

Resist the greenwashing! Let logic lead! If we focus on shifting away from fuels that generate CO2 and methane, we will reduce the greenhouse gasses entering the atmosphere, and, although belatedly, reduce the rate of global warming.  It’s not easy but it is simple.

Paul Stancioff, PhD., is professor emeritus of physics at UMF. Cynthia Stancioff re-words everything he writes. Email: pauls@maine.edu or cynthia.hoeh@gmail.com. Previous columns can be found at https://paulandcynthiaenergymatters.blogspot.com/.

Comments are not available on this story.